No.

They would be required to comply with the current administration’s extremely biased and borderline illiterate interpretation of those laws.

Probably someone on the White House’s payroll who has a micropenis.

Fuck yes, Python.

Just like the famous Rolling Stones song. “I see a kindergarten access ramp and I want it painted black…”

It’s an issue for the safety of his fragile worldview and values.

No, but why should I let what Republicans masturbate to dictate what I comment on Lemmy?

A snake sucking on its own asshole

Nothing you said has anything to do with reality, I’m sorry to say.

An AI “actor” isn’t a unique piece of software. It’s the result of putting a prompt through one of maybe three or four AI video generation models, or one of the few dozen remixes of one of them, with perhaps a few Loras thrown in. Rather than comparing them to humans, it’s much more accurate to compare them to a particular collection of plug-ins for your favorite music editing software. A billion different people can have the exact same plug-ins and create virtually indistinguishable content from each other, and the only content that will stand out is the one made by people with actual talent, who would be able to get great results with any assortment of plug-ins. Which makes all these AI characters completely fungible.

Not to mention that the AI “actors” can only do what someone tells them to do. They’re not talented artists putting their own twist onto a character. They’re like the clothes and make-up worn by an actual actor. Which means that even in a make-believe world where they become popular, studios will still have to deal with the same bullshit they deal with today from actors, except it’ll be prompt engineers dishing it out. Don’t worry though, because AI “actors” will never be popular as such. At most they’ll replace certain types of CG, but never real people. Not with any quality at least.

Critic review?

Laughs in PIX